Ilya, This seems to make sense as a way to help differentiate rivers. It is also good because in will work with intermittent=yes. I have a couple of comments: 1) When a mapper is looking at a river to trace in a localized area they know the river is big or small only by looking at the width of the watercourse, not the length, 2) It seems that there should be consideration given to the social and economic importance of a river. There are many populations and even cities in Africa that are dependent on rivers even though they may not meet your definition of major/big or even small. 3) More than likely a major river should also have a polygon that represents the area as well.
Perhaps just river=big and river=small are the only tags needed? Thanks for your work. Emmor (Palolo) On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Ilya Zverev <i...@zverev.info> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > After a proposal about waterways classification by Daniel Koć, I decided > to make an alternative one. To me, using subjective values and criteria for > classifying rivers is a better way, since it can work in any country > regardless of the official classification. It could be adjusted for any > country, like we do with the place=* tag. And it is inherently > understandable by casual mappers. > > So I propose a river=* tag with the following values: > > * river=major for longest rivers > * river=big for big rivers > * river=small for all other rivers > > See the proposal page for details on these values and rationale: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ > Rivers_Classification > > Thanks, > Ilya > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
